pan6467

So I'm watching Fox 8 WJW in Cleveland for news on the mayoral race. Now for those who need up to date, it's a white lady mayor Jane Campbell against a black former council president Frank Jackson.

So when channel 8 has it's updates and goes to the field reporters in the candidates HQs you have a white man in Campbell's interviewing an older white woman who sounds well educated, and you have a black man in Jackson's interviewing a black guy that basically brings about any stereotype, dressed poorly, talks poorly and tells that this election is for the the poor people and is against the rich whites.

Now, I know this is a Fox affiliate but I truly respected WJW because they seemed down to Earth and had the best true news reporting in the area. And they are the highest rated most respected news in the area.

After watching today, I am not so sure anymore. I felt their news candidate updates were very racist and poorly done.

Any opinions, was it just me or does that sound racist and very biased to you?

(P.S. I did not post this in politics because I don't want a political debate, I just want comment on the observation of the field reports.)

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Glava

Have you considered the possibility that the typical Campbell voter is white, and the typical Jackson voter is black, and that makes it more likely for the interviewees, who themselves are voters, to represent the race of the typical voter?

pan6467

I understand that but I am sure there were far better more educated interviewees in the campaign HQ, that wouldn't have been making the statements this one did.

And what about the choice of field reporters?

Like I said it may just be me and what I interpret as biased and racism. I just think it is interesting the choice of reporters and the interviewees.

BTW Campbell lost by a nice margin.

If I lived in Cleveland, I am not sure how I would have voted both candidates have had major scandals and neither I feel would help Cleveland rebuild.

I do hope though Mr. Jackson can come through and Cleveland regains some dignity and prestige.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Borla

A few years ago I used to feel Fox was the least biased news source available.........not I'm not sure there are any left......it's all about ratings, and very little about accurate, raw facts.

Media outlets now try to digest the information and force feed it instead of providing the data and letting the viewer decide.

__________________
Coimhéad fearg fhear na foighde!!!!

shakran

Ahh but, would they talk? In my experience, it's often very difficult to find someone who isn't too shy to go on camera - especially if its live. People are savvy enough to know that if it's not live and they stumble and sound stupid, we edit around that. They also know that we can't do that live. Then, it's even more difficult in an election because a lot of people out there believe their votes should be private. Obviously, blabbing their opinion on television would be contrary to that viewpoint.

Now, picture this. You're a reporter. You've been working for the last three hours putting together a story that you're about to have to front live. You have about 10 minutes to find somebody before you have to run back to the live truck, put on your microphone, your IFB, and stand in front of the camera so the photographer can make the final touches on his lighting and camera position. You're having a tough time finding someone willing to talk when finally the aforementioned uneducated guy agrees. You're not happy with the interview, but what do you do - your news director said she wanted a live interview no matter what. You decide to go with the guy -is that racist?


Plus, keep in mind that those two reporters hadn't talked to each other since they got to work. The one reporter had no clue who the other reporter chose. Unless the station said "go find me a stupid black guy and a really smart white guy" then there wasn't the opportunity to coordinate racist coverage. And if the station did say that, you'd know about it by now.

As for sending a black guy to cover black people and vice versa - sometimes that's just coincidence and sometimes, yes, its' on purpose. I was at a station once where we had accusations of racism against black people to cover. It promised to be a complicated story, so we sent our best reporter down there to figure out what had happened. The guy happened to be white. Suddenly the next day we see one of the "victims" on our competitor's air telling the world that we were racist because we sent a white guy down to talk about a black issue. It should be apparent to anyone who's read my posts for long what my opinion was of that bullshit, but the unfortunate reality is that viewers are still repelled if they see white people covering a black issue - they feel the white guy couldn't possibly get the story right because he doesn't know what it's like to be black. It's stupid, it's wrong, but it's reality.

And the reason it's stupid and wrong is because a reporter's whole JOB is to understand stuff he wouldn't normally understand. If I do a story on fighter planes, no one bitches that I shouldn't do it because I'm not in the air force. If I do a story on gas prices, no one bitches that I shouldn't do it because I'm not in the oil industry. Yet for some reason a white guy can't possibly do justice to a report on a black guy. It's idiotic.

pan6467

Thanks Shakran, it is interesting to get an insiders viewpoint and I truly appreciate it, perhaps I'm just overeacting (me never ....lol).

I think I probably noticed it because I was looking for bias or slants. The negative results of my wanting to see if I could truly see bias. I think this is a case where one can see it but it isn't necessarily there. Just the perception is because you looked for it.

If that makes sense.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Psycho Dad

But not seeing the interviews that the OP refered to I think we can assume that these were two people that they picked off the street. Had they gone to campaign headquarters or took two people from the same area/site/neighborhood/whatever perhaps the images left by the interviews would have been different.

And shakran, I think had the table been turned and they interviewed some whide guy in a wifebeater buying lottery tickets with a cigarette dangling from his lips he would have been quite happy to get on a soapbox as would a black community leader or professor.

__________________
Don't always trust the opinions of experts.

pan6467

These interviews were done in both candidates campaign headquarters.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

JumpinJesus

I used to think that most people were attention whores and would clamor over each other in order to appear on camera. I don't feel that way anymore. The Chicago Tribune and Fox News came to our school last year to do a story about a struggling school. Our principal held a meeting and told all of us that if we wanted to be interviewed to stay behind and the reporters would ask us questions. Of the 30 some teachers in our building, only 2 stayed behind. Then, when reading the story in the paper, it was easy to get the impression that our school was failing for good reason. I was one of the first teachers out the door. I had no desire to be interviewed or appear on camera. Your explanation makes very good sense and could explain why news sometims appears slanted when people are interviewed.

Knowing this, I'm more likely to believe that this was more coincidence than racism, though I never rule anything out as my tinfoil hat radar is always beeping.

__________________
"I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses

Marvelous Marv

Although I didn't see the interview, if a poor person was selected to talk about the "poor people's candidate," the odds would certainly favor said poor person being less educated, and dressed less expensively.

__________________
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
Margaret Thatcher

Cynthetiq

even of the attention whores that are looking to be on camera for "fun" type things that we produce... it's still hard to find people willing to do what you need them to do when the camera rolls.

we even have huge signs saying something to the effect that "entering premises means you give consent to be on camera" and that even gets people to turn away from a location shoot.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

dublhelix

i saw a very nteresting article the other day. This was about the times of the orlando tornado and subsequent floods ect.

there was two pics. in one, there was a white guy, in waist deep water, hold a sack of food. the tab at the bottom says "inhabitant of orlando flees flood, after finding food."

the other one had a BLACK guy fleeing hte flood. the tab said. "inhabitant of orlando flees flood, after looting store"

the press is a representation of the people. people are biased. what do you expect? in australia we have the aboriginals. We try not to be racist, bu they have a reputation for being violant, theiving shits. I dont mean to PERPETRATE that stereotype, but in my store over the last 5 weeks there has been 6 thefts. ALL by aboriginals, singular or in gangs.

its life. theres racism. get over it.

__________________
A Freudian slip. Where you say one thing and mean your mother....

shakran

Oh christ. Here we go again. This has already been settled. Hell even the mainstream public doesn't think this is an issue anymore. Those photos were taken by two different journalists working for two different newspapers that uploaded to two different wire services. There was no racism here because there was no differential treatment of these subjects by the same organization.




It is? I didn't know that. I thought the press's job was to bring news to the people, not to represent them.


If that's true then your next sentence shouldn't say anything negative about them.

Oh well. Failed that one. The last time I was in australia, EVERY person who was rude to me was a goddamn Australian! Based on your example, I'll take that to mean ALL Australians are rude.

See why it's not a good idea to stereotype? You found six aboriginals who robbed your store. You're taking that to mean the thousands of aboriginals out there will all behave the same way as the 6 individuals you sampled. That's not exactly a statistic that has a small margin of error.



Did you read this thread before you responded to it? It's been pretty much agreed that there probably wasn't racism in this case, so there's nothing to get over.

(edit)

You know the more I think about this the more annoyed I get. There's a real issue with people jumping on the "hate this profession" bandwagon. Used to be it was mainly lawyers. Everyone loved to pick on lawyers. They're all sleazy scumbags who chase ambulances for a living. Isn't it fun to snipe at lawyers. . . until of course you need one, then you go running to hire one and strangely we don't hear about sleazy lawyers any more until you win your case.

And in the last couple of decades people love to do it about the media. They're all dumpster-diving, trash-sifting, egomaniacal airheads who only want to see their face on TV. They're always out to trick you so they can get a story out there, and they'll make shit up if they want it to be more sensational.

It's real popular to hate the media, and if people don't have a good reason to rail on the media, they'll make crap up. Sounds a lot like what they accuse the media of doing in the first place.

The point is, if you jump on the "hate the (insert profession here)" bandwagon, you'd better be damn sure you have your facts straight. It's pretty stupid to denigrate a profession just because everyone else is doing it.

pan6467

I'm truly sorry Shakran, my purpose for this thread was to point out an observance I made and to see if it was just me or what others thought. Your first post explaining how hard it is and Cyn's latter post showed me that it was probably me looking for it (as I stated in a previous post).

I really am not looking to blast the press, in fact it is my belief it is all we have to combat us against tyranny.

However, the Right and Left seem to want to attack the press which to me is a very scary proposition, and unfortunately I believe the media corporations owning the press are caving in. This causes people to see and hear in the news what they want (for sales) and not necessarily what is truth.

I truly hope I am wrong.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

shakran

No, hold on. You saw something that WAS unbalanced. You then ASKED if it was racism. Cyn and I explained how things work and you went away having learned something.

dublhelix saw two unbalanced photographs in an OLD news story, and didn't bother asking if it was racism - he just assumed it was and proceeded to accuse the media of being racist. There's a big difference, and that's why there's a very big difference in the tone of my reply to you and the tone of my reply to dublhelix.

I don't think you have anything to apologize for.


And I don't think you're looking to blast the press. In fact I think you're looking to make sure the press stays honest and balanced, because that's vital to the preservation of the 4th estate.


Yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes. Deregulation of the media is the biggest threat to democracy we have ever seen. Used to be your ownership of TV/radio stations was SEVERELY limited. There'd be no way to have megaconglomerants owning dozens of stations across the country.

Now that big corporations are allowed to own basically all the stations they want, independent voice in the media is becoming a very rare thing. And it creates an inherent conflict of interest. Look at it this way: GE owns NBC. GE is a large corporation that benefits from tax breaks granted to them by a certain political party. There is now a conflict of interest - the news teams could be encouraged (or ordered) to cover that party more favorably than the other. It hasnt' happened to a huge extent yet (by which I mean the favoritism isn't obvious) but that day is coming. Or, even putting politics aside, what if a GE manufactured refridgerator tended to catch fire and GE didn't want that info to get out. NBC might be pressured to sit on the information.

Frankly the only reason this stuff hasn't happened on a large scale yet is because they haven't managed to get rid of the "old-fashioned" real journalists who would scream the scandal to every corner of the world should someone tell them to slant their coverage.



You're not, but I hope you will eventually be wrong.



(edit) what HAS happened with megaconglomerants owning media outlets is that the corporate "profit above all else" mentality has taken over. Used to be in the 70's and 80's if there was a story in East Jahupastan and it would cost 2 million to get it, but it was important that the viewers know about it, it was by-god gotten, and damn the cost.

Now with the profit motive having taken over the journalism motive, getting the story even one state over can be tough unless you can prove it will bring in RATINGS, whether or not it brings vital information to the viewers.

The example I always use is the media's coverage of Clinton. Whether you like him or hate him you have to agree that one of the most important events in his presidency was when bin Laden bombed the trade center in 1993. Clinton did next to nothing about it. He lobbed a few ineffective cruise missiles over, but didn't make any effort to go after bin Laden. He just closed his eyes and hoped it'd go away.

But did the media hold his feet to the fire for that? Hell no! Who wants to hear about Afghanistan and Al Qaeda and all those other strange names that are thousands of miles away. That won't sell advertisements! But sex by god will, so we'll cover the president getting a blowjob!

Now, of the two stories, the one that the media failed to cover was the one that ended up killing so many people on 9/11 and the one that ended up being the excuse Bush needed to go to war with Iraq. In short, this is something the American people should have been told about back then. It's something that should have been taken care of back then. And it's something that the public should have been enraged that Clinton wasn't taking care of it.

But because the people were not properly informed about the issue, they had nothing to get mad at. But boy that story about what Clinton did to Lewinsky with a cigar sure did sell ads!

pan6467

Thank you for a little JOurnalism 101 Shakran, I truly appreciated the read.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"